虽然绍伊古这番未雨绸缪颇有远见，而且早在今年2月，中美"稀土大战"最激烈的时候，普京就专门主 持召开俄稀土行业发展会议，表示已经实现稀土产品产量的倍增，还向美国抛出橄榄枝，愿意在稀土方 面合作。 据俄卫星网报道，当地时间10月24日，俄联邦安全会议秘书绍伊古称，俄罗斯迫切需要建立一套，完全 独立于中美的"自主稀土金属产业链"。 他表示俄罗斯政府应该大力推动本国的稀土产业发展，打造一套从稀土开采到提纯的完整"国产产业 链"，为此将投资7000亿卢布（约合618亿元人民币），在西伯利亚打造"关键稀土金属加工集群"。 看来中美这场"贸易大战"，把俄罗斯先给打醒了，俄罗斯看到失去中国稀土后美国的下场，不得不警惕 起来。 以目前俄罗斯的能力，还达不到"自给自足"的水平，俄罗斯缺乏的不只是设备，还有技术，短期内均无 法实现。 当然，俄罗斯的这个动作，中国也有必要关注，虽然现阶段我国在稀土领域的优势非常大，但我们也应 该利用领先时期，建立和稀土相关的国际秩序，让我们可以在该领域能成为"掌握规则者"，未来即使其 他国家也开发出了稀土研发技术，也可以通过国际规则，将稀土领域的话语权，牢牢掌握在中国人手 中。 声明：个人原创，仅 ...

之前美国找乌克兰搞矿，普京马上提醒自己这边稀土更多。这招玩的是对冲，用稀土当谈判筹码。但实际操作起来问题一堆。 俄罗斯稀土设备全得靠自己造，中国技术又拿不到。政府说投7000亿卢布，可钱从哪来还不清楚。打仗花了不少钱，剩下的钱能不能到位都是问题。 俄罗斯突然宣布要在西伯利亚搞稀土产业。绍伊古说这事关系到国家存不存在的问题了。他们准备投612亿人民币建稀土基地，想从挖矿到加工全自己来。 中国稀土管控让欧美慌了，俄罗斯看了心里有数。现在普京政府觉得关键资源不能受制于人，特别是军工要用的稀土。绍伊古亲自出马，说明这件事排前面 了。 俄罗斯稀土储量排全球前五，但开采加工水平低得很。他们想通过稀土赚新钱，毕竟能源出口现在不好做。还想拉其他发展中国家做生意，跟中国抢市场。 西伯利亚那边基建差，开发成本高。西方制裁下，找外资困难。印度可能投点钱，但规模小。最后还得找中国合作，可中国人已经不让卖技术了。 稀土产业链要建起来得十年。这期间得克服技术、钱不够、基建慢这些坎。俄罗斯现在只能慢慢来，看能做成多少。 这事可能改变全球稀土格局。现在只能等等，看他们十来年后能不能建成自己的体系。 ...

Core Points - The EU summit in Brussels on October 23 saw French President Macron's strong stance on China's rare earth export controls, urging the EU to consider activating the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) to retaliate against China [1][3] - The "nuclear option" proposed by Macron would grant the EU significant retaliatory powers, including imposing high tariffs and restricting investments from countries deemed to be engaging in "economic coercion" [3][5] - Despite the potential deterrent effect of the ACI, it has never been effectively utilized since its inception, as demonstrated by the EU's decision to compromise with the US during a previous trade dispute [5][7] Rare Earth Dependency - The EU's dependency on China for rare earth elements is significantly higher than anticipated, with 82% of its rare earth demand met through imports from China, and 95% dependency in the refining and processing stages [7][19] - In 2025, China accounted for 64% of global rare earth production and controlled 78% of the refining capacity, making it challenging for the EU to find alternative suppliers in the short term [7][19] - Germany's trade with China has surpassed that with the US, with a trade volume of €163.4 billion in the first eight months of 2025, highlighting the economic interdependence between the EU and China [7][19] Economic Implications - The potential activation of the "nuclear option" could severely disrupt the EU's manufacturing sector due to rare earth shortages, leading to significant economic repercussions [7][19] - The European Automobile Manufacturers Association warned that if the rare earth shortage is not resolved within 60 days, 60% of EU electric vehicle factories and 40% of wind energy equipment factories could face shutdowns, potentially reducing the EU's GDP growth by 0.8 percentage points in 2025 [20][19] - The US has also reacted strongly to China's rare earth controls, considering severe sanctions that could impact both economies, but the feasibility and consequences of such actions remain uncertain [9][11][12]

Group 1 - China has implemented export controls on rare earth elements, citing national security concerns, which are part of a long-term strategy rather than a spontaneous decision [1][3] - The export controls target products with excessive rare earth content, including magnets and technologies, with China controlling 70% of global rare earth mining and 90% of processing [3][9] - The U.S. relies on China for over 70% of its rare earth imports, which are critical for various industries, including electric vehicles and defense [3][9] Group 2 - U.S. officials have criticized China's actions as "power grabs" in the global supply chain, yet they acknowledge the need for reliable supply rather than complete decoupling [5][21] - The U.S. plans to impose a 100% tariff on rare earth imports in response to China's export controls, effective from November 1 [6][28] - China's response to U.S. tariffs emphasizes the legality and necessity of its measures, arguing that the U.S. is applying double standards [8][21] Group 3 - The U.S. is exploring financial measures, including the potential exclusion of China from the SWIFT system, which could significantly disrupt cross-border transactions [12][18] - However, the complexity of the situation makes it challenging for the U.S. to implement such measures without causing global financial instability [16][21] - China's financial institutions are preparing alternative solutions, such as using other currencies for transactions, which could undermine the dollar's dominance [16][23] Group 4 - The U.S. aims to build an independent rare earth supply chain through strategic partnerships, but domestic reserves are minimal, relying heavily on imports from Australia and Canada [24][28] - China's long-term strategy includes the development of its cross-border payment system, CIPS, which operates independently of SWIFT and is gaining traction globally [26][33] - The ongoing U.S.-China competition in rare earths and finance is expected to continue, with both sides maintaining their positions while exploring negotiation opportunities [31][33]

Group 1 - The core issue revolves around the European Union's urgent need for rare earth materials, which are critical for industries such as electric vehicles and renewable energy, highlighting China's dominant position in this market [3][5] - France's President Macron has threatened to use the EU's "nuclear option" trade tool against China if it continues to control rare earth exports, indicating a shift in diplomatic tone despite recent concessions from China [5][9] - The EU's approach appears contradictory, as it seeks negotiations with China while simultaneously imposing sanctions on Chinese companies, reflecting a lack of genuine commitment to cooperation [7][11] Group 2 - China is reluctant to escalate tensions with the EU, recognizing the importance of their trade relationship, but it holds significant leverage due to its market size and the dependence of European industries on Chinese rare earths [9][11] - The article suggests that Europe has not fully grasped its diminished global standing and is caught between the US and China, needing to choose a clear path for future cooperation or confrontation [11][13] - The potential for a mutually beneficial partnership exists, where China could provide rare earth processing technology in exchange for European high-tech innovations, but current attitudes from Europe lean towards entitlement rather than collaboration [11][13]

特朗普自信称，美国一年内稀土将"用不完"，但澳大利亚金融分析师丹·摩根认为，这根本不现实。他指出，中国从1959年提炼出第一炉稀土合金，到成为 全球稀土霸主，花了整整66年，美国与澳大利亚不可能在一年内复制这个奇迹。而且，澳大利亚本身在稀土精炼上严重依赖中国，约90%的锂矿仍需运往中 国加工，再运回澳大利亚。按照中方的出口管制措施，美国想通过澳大利亚突破稀土限制，首先还得得到中国"点头"。 日前，特朗普在社交媒体上宣称，美国未来一年稀土供应将充足，不会再被中国"卡脖子"。他解释，这得益于美国找到了一条新的稀土供应链——澳大利 亚。 此外，澳大利亚对这份协议也并不"较真"，官方将其称为"行动计划"，不设硬性目标，也不具法律约束力。换句话说，合作是形式上的，但不影响澳大利亚 自身利益。阿尔巴尼斯上台后，刚刚修复对华关系，让铁矿石和菜籽油重新出口中国，贸然站在美国一边，对澳大利亚来说风险极大。 10月20日，特朗普与到访白宫的澳大利亚总理阿尔巴尼斯签署了一份合作文件，美国将投资高达85亿美元，用于稀土的开采、加工和精炼。对于美国来说， 加大国内及海外稀土投资，是避免受制于中国的最直接方法。其实，从拜登时期开始，美国 ...

Core Viewpoint - China's Ministry of Commerce announced stricter export controls on rare earth-related items and technologies, impacting the entire industry chain from mining to manufacturing, including foreign rare earth products with over 0.1% Chinese components [1][10] Group 1: Impact on Global Supply Chain - The new regulations are described as "almost unprecedented" by the Wall Street Journal, indicating the significant impact on global supply chains [1] - China accounts for 69% of the global rare earth production, but its real leverage lies in its control over refining and separation technologies [3] - The U.S. military's F35 program has faced supply risks due to reliance on Chinese rare earth materials, highlighting the critical nature of these resources [3][5] Group 2: Effects on Specific Companies - ASML, a key player in the semiconductor industry, may face delivery uncertainties for its EUV lithography machines due to the new regulations affecting essential rare earth materials [5] - MP Materials, the largest U.S. rare earth producer, is unable to provide a complete supply chain, as the U.S. lacks the necessary refining and separation capabilities [7][8] Group 3: Strategic Timing and Broader Implications - The timing of China's announcement coincided with U.S. actions against Chinese companies, suggesting a strategic response to regain control in trade negotiations [10] - China's export control measures are framed as a standard international practice aimed at safeguarding national security and interests [10][12] - The establishment of an export licensing system allows for continued commercial use while restricting military applications, creating uncertainty for foreign companies [12] Group 4: Long-term Industry Development - China's rare earth industry has developed a complete supply chain over decades, emphasizing the importance of technological accumulation and industry resilience [14] - The recent export controls underscore the significance of resource control in modern technological competition, where both technological advancement and supply chain integrity are crucial [14]

Core Viewpoint - China's announcement to strengthen rare earth export controls has triggered significant global market reactions, impacting high-tech industries and military supply chains worldwide [1][4]. Group 1: China's Rare Earth Dominance - China dominates global rare earth production, accounting for over 60% of total output and more than 80% of refining [1]. - The new export controls will include heavy rare earth elements such as holmium, erbium, thulium, and ytterbium, along with processing equipment and software, set to take effect from November 8 [4]. - In 2024, the U.S. is expected to import over 10,000 tons of rare earth concentrates from China, making up 85% of its total imports [5]. Group 2: Market Reactions and U.S. Response - Following China's announcement, rare earth prices surged, with dysprosium oxide prices increasing by 15% within a week [5]. - The U.S. Department of Defense made significant purchases, including $500 million for cobalt alloys and $245 million for antimony ingots, totaling 3,000 tons, in response to the tightening supply [3]. - U.S. military production lines face risks of stagnation due to reliance on Chinese imports, particularly for antimony, which the U.S. has not produced domestically for 24 years [7]. Group 3: Strategic Implications - The competition for mineral resources between China and the U.S. has intensified, with both countries responding to each other's export controls and tariffs [11]. - The U.S. has initiated efforts to establish a "Mineral Security Partnership" to create alternative supply chains, but new mining projects typically require three to five years to become operational [5]. - Antimony's global demand is growing at 5% annually, with China supplying 60% of the market, highlighting the strategic importance of this material for both military and civilian applications [7][9].

Group 1 - The core viewpoint is that the outcome of the US-China competition hinges on whether China can produce high-end chips or the US can secure rare earth elements first, with a pessimistic outlook for the US [1] - Chips are seen as a matter of time for China, which is gradually making breakthroughs without significant technological constraints [3] - The US is underestimating the seriousness of rare earth elements, which are crucial for technologies like AI and high-end chips [3] Group 2 - The US faces significant challenges in overcoming rare earth limitations, which are described as extremely difficult to achieve [5] - China has spent over twenty years consolidating national efforts to achieve a technological monopoly, which the US has criticized as "state capitalism" [5] - A US rare earth company is reportedly receiving a total investment of $1.4 billion from the Defense Department and Goldman Sachs, but achieving goals through this model is considered challenging [5] Group 3 - Understanding the outcome of the US-China rivalry is essential for South Korea to make informed decisions on its strategy [7]

Core Viewpoint - The recent $8.5 billion mineral cooperation agreement between the U.S. and Australia highlights the urgency for the U.S. to reduce its dependence on Chinese rare earth resources, particularly in the context of military applications [1][10]. Group 1: U.S. Concerns and Military Dependency - The U.S. military relies heavily on rare earth elements, with 87% of its 153 major weapon systems dependent on Chinese processing [1]. - The F-47 fighter jet requires 8 to 12 kilograms of rare earths, and 70% of the heavy rare earths used in the U.S. come from China, indicating a significant vulnerability in the U.S. defense supply chain [1]. Group 2: Australia's Position and Resources - Australia ranks fourth globally in rare earth reserves, with 5.7 million tons, and possesses the only large-scale heavy rare earth production base outside of China, making it a strategic partner for the U.S. [6]. - The agreement is seen as mutually beneficial, with Australia aiming to enhance its position in the global mineral market while providing the U.S. with critical resources [6]. Group 3: Challenges and Realities - Despite the cooperation, Australia's rare earth reserves are significantly lower than China's, which holds 44 million tons, over seven times more than Australia [7]. - The timeline for Australia to scale up production to meet U.S. needs is unrealistic, with full-scale production not expected until 2028, while the U.S. seeks self-sufficiency within a year [7][10]. - The technological and industrial barriers that China has established over years cannot be easily overcome by mere agreements or investments, as China controls 90% of the global rare earth supply chain and extraction technology [7][8]. Group 4: Conclusion on the Agreement's Impact - The $8.5 billion agreement appears to be more of a political gesture to alleviate U.S. anxiety over rare earth dependence rather than a practical solution to the underlying supply chain issues [10]. - The global supply chain dynamics are complex and cannot be altered solely through political maneuvers; achieving true independence in rare earth supply will require substantial technological advancements and production capabilities [10].